Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,302 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Glad to have helped you stay awake.


:)

Quote:
 

Yes, I was afraid you wouldn't hit on this point. It's easy to recognize that homosexuals can't naturally reproduce, since it's 100% all the time, not possible.


A homosexual couple cannot reproduce, they are a sterile couple there are other sterile couples who are heterosexual and 100% cannot reproduce.

Quote:
 

Secondly, if you were to eliminate marriage for sterile couples, that wouldn't be realistic. No one would reveal the status of their fertility and the law would then be futile.


Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue. If for instance there happened to be a virus that knocked out reproductive organs but also left a highly unique and very easily recogniseable scar on people's left cheek, then obviously you wouldn't allow people with that scar to marry. Right?

Quote:
 

However, since I'm a fan of hypotheticals, if you DID know a couple was infertile, you shouldn't not let them marry for two reasons:

1) Marriage is for heterosexual couples - regardless of fertility. Sure a main talking point is that this is based on their ability to reproduce, but the law isn't defined by it's rationale, it's defined by it's definition - one man and one women - inspired by reproduction, but not defined by it.


Aaah so you see it has nothing to do with reproduction afterall, the entire reproduction line is just rationalisation it's just a way of trying to defend a view point you have for an entirely separate reason.

Definitions are just words, words change, already people do talk about "homosexual marriage" already the word is changing, if you want to oppose that change the you have to have some coherent reasons for it evidently the whole reproduction line fails because if you really believed it were the significant feature then sterile heterosexuals could equally be ruled out. But of course you don't want to rule them out.

Merely restating a historical definition who's change is in a sense the very object of the debate is not a defense against changing it.

Quote:
 

2) Since it's quite obvious that the best environment for growing children is in a stable man/woman house (generally), then adoption would be an easy opportunity for those infertile couples, since they would still have the dynamic of a fertile heterosexual couple.


See this line is clearly not going to work either.

A) Is it really so obivous? What evidence are you using to determine this conclusion? From the purely circumstantial evidence i've come across that doesn't seem true (hell in that wife swap episode where redneck wife swaps with homosexual i know which family i'd put kids into).

B) Even if it were true that on average homosexual couples were worse parents than heterosexual couples (and i'm not sure that's true) then so what? It's trivial to demonstrate that certain definable groups of society make worse parents than others, poverty and poor education make you on average a worse parent. If the emphasis is not on reproduction but on average parenting then why allow the poor and the uneducated to marry?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 12:00 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.


I didn't say it is, because it is. I said that it's reserved for heterosexuals, because they are the only type of couple that can have children.

Which brings us back to the logical conclusion that heterosexuals who cannot have children should not be allowed to marry -- round and round and round we go.

So, do you want to explain to me again why you think sterile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry when you have said that the reason people are allowed to marry is because they can have children?

Because:

A) It would be unrealistic to ban all of heterosexual marriage because some couples are sterile.
B) They can still adopt and have the same family unit of fertile couples.
C) No one would admit they were sterile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

MB:

Quote:
 
Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue.


Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.

Sorry...gotta go to lunch now. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
89th,

Quote:
 
Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.


So are you saying then, that if it were realistic, you would like to have those tests done? And what do you mean by realistic?

In order to be married by certain priests, some couples actually have to go through a "marriage class", to make sure they understand all that's involved, and to make sure they truly know what they're getting into. It's not all that intensive, and doesn't require that much time.

We have the ability to perform most or all of those tests you've described. I bet they could all be done from one, maybe two trips to a doctor or psychologist's office. These tests would take shorter time than the marriage courses being performed today. Why don't we just do them?

I disagree with that premise entirely anyway, because to me marriage isn't about fertility, mental state, intelligence, or anything of that sort. Realistic testing or no, these should never be the criteria for marriage.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:13 AM
MB:

Quote:
 
Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue.


Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.

Sorry...gotta go to lunch now. :)

No, really, it shouldn't be who CAN reproduce, it should be those who DO reproduce. Just because I can play basketball doesn't mean I do play for the Nicks. Just because the parts fit together, that doesn't mean they work. If the civil institution of marriage is for the protection children, the rights associated therewith should only apply to couples with children.

If a couple wishes to abrogate their duty to have children, they should not reap the benefits accorded the married.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 05:52 PM

Ax: I know you love the idea of social engineering -- which is why I am damned glad that you're not in charge of making laws. :wink: Given the fact that a 65 year old woman gave birth to a child last year, no your assumption cannot be maintained.

Still, do you not concede that there is a point in a person's life beyond which that person loses the ability, "potential" or otherwise, to procreate? Do you not oppose granting such persons the right to marriage? [/QUOTE]
Of course I do not oppose this, Ax, and that you would is directly against the UN Charter of Human Rights.

I realize that you are trying to draw an analogy between being of an age past the ability to bear children, and homosexuals who can never have the ability to procreate within the confines of their relationship -- hoping to point out some inconsistency in my argument and thus dismiss it -- but there is an essential difference between these two class that you constantly fail to recognize.

Even from strict science, there is an expontnetially greater chance that the reproductive age of women will be extended than that two men or two women will ever be able to have a baby without some third party donator involvement.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 08:11 AM
A) It would be unrealistic to ban all of heterosexual marriage because some couples are sterile.




Again, who has said anything about banning all heterosexual marriages? We'd just ban the ones where one or both partners are incapable of procreation.

Quote:
 
B) They can still adopt and have the same family unit of fertile couples.


As can homosexuals in many states and countries and likely as they will soon be able to do to the same extent heterosxuals do.

Quote:
 
C) No one would admit they were sterile.


Actually, I know of a lot of women who admit to hysterectomies and most women have little trouble admitting they have passed menopause. I also know men who have told me they are infertile for one reason or another.

Lots of people admit to being sterile. And, of course, practical or not, if it is so massively important to society to ensure heteorsexual marriage for procreation purposes, fertility tests are easily done and laws can be easily passed to mandate such tests.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Matt G.
Jun 8 2006, 08:18 PM
Well, sorry 89th, but it's all about procreation and protecting children and family building and keeping society going. If you're not going to have children (whether it's "can't" or "won't"), you shouldn't get married. Married heterosexuals without children contribute nothing to society. At least, that's all I can glean from all the rantings here.

Besides, some say that the reason homosexuals can't marry is because they are incapable of having children. Damning the whole lot? Well, it sure seems to run both ways, no?

Matt: you miss the argument. You are try to draw an ought out of an is.

And the fact thet you have to dismiss this as 'rantings' -- per your Schopenhauer thread -- indicates to me that you seem to realize that you cannot advance a solid argument. So now you are going to pull from your bag of tricks all sorts of rhetorical devices rather that sound argumentation.

Pardon me if I'm not going to give your further arguments time or credibility because I have better things to do than try to ascertain which fallacy du jour you are employing.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 9 2006, 02:10 AM
Homosexuals can reproduce, so heaven knows what this case is built on. But because for some reason we seem to be pretending they cannot ok, let go down that route:

Homosexuals can only reproduce heterosexually or with some third party donation -- so I have to assume that you are agreeing with my point.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 08:11 AM

But neither do we give the right to drive to those who cannot pass the test.


Thank you for making this point Rick, for it supports precisely what I've said. Homosexuals are never apply to pass the test of having natural reproductive faculities within the confines of the relationship.

Quote:
 


Thus, under your logic, Issac, we should not give the right to marriage to any who have no potential to reproduce 


Typical of an argument by extension -- you and Moombat and MattG have all tried to do this -- you have to add terms and assume those terms are necessarily "under [your] logic". That is a fallacy, Rick. The only test required is: "are these two persons of complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty". Anything else will be deeply invasive of personal privacy. Complementary sexuality is chromosomally XX and XY. (I will acknowledge but for now table the rare cases of XXY etc -- hard cases make bad laws).

That is the only "test" required is whether the couple is of complementary sexuality and of full age.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 9 2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:
 

Since the dawn of time, the only couple that has reproduced is a heterosexual couple.





Is that the best you can do? 89th is clearly speaking about homo sapiens and you have to try to drag in hermaphroditic species to make your point? That is a lame argument and well beneath you, MB. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 09:00 AM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.


I didn't say it is, because it is. I said that it's reserved for heterosexuals, because they are the only type of couple that can have children.

Which brings us back to the logical conclusion that heterosexuals who cannot have children should not be allowed to marry -- round and round and round we go.

So, do you want to explain to me again why you think sterile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry when you have said that the reason people are allowed to marry is because they can have children?

Rick: The fact that you are on a dialogic merry go round is that you are trying to make the case that no one who is incapable of reproduction should be allowed to marry if homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Those are not the terms of the argument, and they are extensions that you are trying to put on them to dismantle the actual argument.

Part of the convention of conversation is that one must discuss on the same agreed upon terms. 89th, Jolly, and I have already pointed out why your extensions are not persuasive or compelling, so if you want to keep insisting upon them -- enjoy the ride!!!! :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 09:13 AM
MB:

Quote:
 
Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue.


Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.

Sorry...gotta go to lunch now. :)

89th -- that would not be ideal, and would in fact be deeply invasive of personal privacy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Typical of an argument by extension -- you and Moombat and MattG have all tried to do this -- you have to add terms and assume those terms are necessarily "under [your] logic". That is a fallacy, Rick. The only test required is: "are these two persons of complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty". Anything else will be deeply invasive of personal privacy. Complementary sexuality is chromosomally XX and XY. (I will acknowledge but for now table the rare cases of XXY etc -- hard cases make bad laws).

That is the only "test" required is whether the couple is of complementary sexuality and of full age.


"The only test requires is are the two persons of completary sexuality and past the past the age puberty."

That's just restating your definition. The question is why is it significant that they be of "complimentary" sexuality? (in a sense surely homosexuals are of "complimentary sexuality" if otherwise they wouldn't be sexally attracted to one another but presumably you mean penis and vagina).

What is the basis underlying your position? Is this mere historical precendence?

Quote:
 

The fact that you are on a dialogic merry go round is that you are trying to make the case that no one who is incapable of reproduction should be allowed to marry if homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Those are not the terms of the argument, and they are extensions that you are trying to put on them to dismantle the actual argument.


What then _is_ the argument? Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because marriage is a state available only to those capable of engendering children. As such it is meaningless to talk about homosexual marriage. For one this is not an argument it's just restating a definition.

For two you can easily demonstrate that if your definition of marriage is somehow tied to ideas of potential engendering of children then it clearly fails to match the everyday concept of marriage. - Marriage is not restricted to those capable of engendering children.

I want the law to be such that homosexuals have all the legal rights of heterosexuals, i want them to be able to adopt children i want them to be able to have a legally binding ceremony analogous to current heterosexual marriage. Do you have an argument aganist this, or is argument merely against the word "marriage"?.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat:

After you consult a dictionary and discover the difference between "complimentary" and "complementary", I may decide to read the rest of your response. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Although I've not read the whole thing, someone here is using this. When in doubt, object to the logical following of your opponent. Just pout, "Petitio principii, I'm taking my toys and going home."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Optimistic
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:13 PM
Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.


Sounds a little too close to eugenics to me.

"Sorry, any offspring that might result from your marriage would be highly prone to inadequate levels of intelligence and undesirable behavioural characteristics. Declined!"
PHOTOS

I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up.
- Mark Twain


We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
-T. S. Eliot
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Is that the best you can do? 89th is clearly speaking about homo sapiens and you have to try to drag in hermaphroditic species to make your point? That is a lame argument and well beneath you, MB. 


I read his comment as the implication that there was some inherent tie between reproduction and heterosexuality. Though on reflection this was probably reading more than was intended. (The whole dawn of time might have influenced my reading - the universe if over 10 billion years old, humanity in it's present form is about 10 thousand years old).

- Sorry 89th i should have realised you were just restating the obvious.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Optimistic
Jun 9 2006, 09:41 AM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:13 PM
Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.


Sounds a little too close to eugenics to me.

"Sorry, any offspring that might result from your marriage would be highly prone to inadequate levels of intelligence and undesirable behavioural characteristics. Declined!"

Yep. That's why that not only is it unrealistic, but it's also not ideal.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
I want the law to be such that homosexuals have all the legal rights of heterosexuals, i want them to be able to adopt children i want them to be able to have a legally binding ceremony analogous to current heterosexual marriage. Do you have an argument aganist this, or is argument merely against the word "marriage"?.


And people in Hell want ice water.

Sorry if that's a bit snarky, but I fail to understand how IT restating his position ad infinitum leads to a greater understanding of his words...."C", "A","T" will always spell "cat", as long as we stick to the same language.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

After you consult a dictionary and discover the difference between "complimentary" and "complementary", I may decide to read the rest of your response. 


Blah i get the idea, i just can't spell particularly when typing at speed.

My comment that homosexuals in a sense had a complEmentary sexuality, was in the

Quote:
 

Forming or serving as a complement; completing.
Supplying mutual needs or offsetting mutual lacks.


sense. It seems reasonable to say atleast in one sense that a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman do not complementary sexualities.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 9 2006, 10:36 AM
As such it is meaningless to talk about homosexual marriage.


Folks, we have a winner here. It is not that homosexuals are denied marriage, they are incapable of it. You are not capable of unassisted breathing under water. Are you "denied" that?

Now, understanding the problem of analogies in this sort of domain, let me answer
Quote:
 

I want the law to be such that homosexuals have all the legal rights of heterosexuals, i want them to be able to adopt children i want them to be able to have a legally binding ceremony analogous to current heterosexual marriage. Do you have an argument aganist this, or is argument merely against the word "marriage"?.

I have many times stated that I am fully in favor of Registered Domestic Corporations(tm) between any number of consenting adults of any age or sexual preference or composition, that provide for rights of inheritence, insurance, tax advantage, property, etc. No "rights" are being denied to anyone. If three or four people want to declare their commitments to each other and have a "religious ceremony" of some sort, that's their business.

But let's not call it "marriage" -- let alone the complete absurdity of "matrimony". What objection do you have to this?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
You pretty much sold me on the Domestic Corporations (tm) concept. I wouldn't just limit it to same sex couples and multiple partners either but include it for all- heteros in monogamous relationships too. I see great commercial opportunities for it: share issues, public trading, job creation- you name it. The perfect solution to get us all out of this social and, seemingly moral, dilemma. If there's money to be made let's go for it. Abolish marriage!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 11:00 AM
You pretty much sold me on the Domestic Corporations (tm) concept. I wouldn't just limit it to same sex couples and multiple partners either but include it for all- heteros in monogamous relationships too. I see great commercial opportunities for it: share issues, public trading, job creation- you name it. The perfect solution to get us all out of this social and, seemingly moral, dilemma. If there's money to be made let's go for it. Abolish marriage!

You must be a thorough going modernist, AC, to want to abolish the venerable institution upon which all civilization has been built. :P

The point is one of accommodation as we develop new understandings of rights. Your solution of abolition actually denies rights to folks that have been understood and agreed upon since time immemorial. What are you, some sort of a Maoist? :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Probably a small "t" Trotskyist- the notion of Permanent Revolution is very appealing to me. Although I find Prince Kropotkin's anarchism almost equally appealing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply